the reason that you're getting so much push back on the iran deal is the perception of manifest destiny, this idea that it's america's rightful place as global hegemon, as invincible empire.

at some point, americans are going to have to realize the folly of this thinking - or face the consequences of the errors that come from it. but, this is ancient propaganda. in some sense, it's baked into the culture.

it was never clear what your mandate really was, other than to not be the dipshit your predecessor was. but, a significant part of the perception of your presidency was your public speaking skills. if there were any expectations at all, they were regarding your use of the bully pulpit to snap some sense into people.

http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse

SelectCircle
The world's up for grabs. Why let Islam have it? Or Marxism.

deathtokoalas
self-determination isn't an ideological position. it's an unavoidable fact, sooner or later.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Self-determination is the intellectual ploy that Islamists and Marxists use to get good forces to back off - so they can take over instead. You must be a very low-level stooge for the Left if you haven't figured out yet the cynicism and duplicity of your evil post-colonial Marxist leaders.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle i align with the strain of anarchism that has continually been slaughtered by marxists, and has both written extensively in opposition to marxism and fought against it - always losing, unfortunately.

there's not a debate to be had, here. you cannot prevent people from determining their own future. you can only render yourself irrelevant by trying - or destroy yourself if you invest enough into it that you're seen as a threat to the self-determination of others.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Anarchists and Marxists wink at each other - lovingly. There's not a single ally on the Left for decent people. And it's about time you shape up and stop playing while getting played.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle lol. well, i sometimes argue that conservatives and liberals are the same thing. i guess i can't be too critical of your ignorance on the matter.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas This is a case of Presumed Ignorance vs. Pretend Naivete. - Do you ever cut the crap and just level with folks?

deathtokoalas
using a two-pronged axis, marxists are on the far right of the socialist spectrum and are viewed by anarchists as little different than fascists. marxism is really the evolution of a strain of feudalism called "enlightened despotism". there's some exceptions. but most anarchists view most marxists as totalitarian, right-wing lunatics that are the absolute enemy of any meaningful concept of liberty - and we know from experience that we cannot count them as allies, despite them tricking us into it in the past. we don't look at the soviet union or the prc as failed attempts at communism, we understand that the approach was flawed from the start and that the outcome was the only thing that could have ever come from centralizing power into a state bureaucracy and aligning it under the head of an absolute ruler. the dictatorship of the proletariat can only ever be a dictatorship of the proletariat.

anarchism has the same intellectual roots in the french revolution as much of what we call western liberal democracy. it's really a purer adherence to the principles that our own society was founded on.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas You're a Marxist who's lost his mind waiting. That's all.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle i'm more into thomas paine than karl marx, actually. and, considering that he was attempting to apply pre-industrial liberalism to an industrial society, i don't think marx' insights into economics (which is about what anarchists would restrict themselves to in citing marx) are very useful in the growing reality of living in an automated, post-industrial society. the economics of marxism only make sense if you assume socialization of production as a given. otherwise, it's pointless intellectual masturbation.

another way to put it is that anarchists are really the same thing as what you'd call "social liberalism", they just take both planks (economic collectivism, individual freedom) to more exaggerated places, which partially means taking the state out of it in favour of local decision making.

we need fresh thinking on how to apply liberalism to an automated, post-industrial society. and the answer may look more like something milton friedman thought up than something karl marx imagined.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Paine would've settled for Marx. We know what you guys are about. And you know it too. 

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle marx was pretty critical of paine.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Protestants are critical of Catholics. But both are Christians. In the same way that atheists don't get sucked into fine sectarian distinctions but just condemn the whole lot - conservatives are learning to condemn the whole Left as all the same thing. You know with whom you stand - even if they're the ones who martyr you.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle the difference between anarchists and marxists is more along the lines of the difference between christians and jews, in the sense that we come from a common place but have drastically different perspectives. and, if you want the direct analogy, it's that marxists are closer to upholding the fire and brimstone of the old testament, whereas anarchists are more into the love your neighbour idea of the new one.

you can paint with as broad a brush as you like. you're correct in deducing that you're unlikely to find much common ground with either of us. and, we're not going to sit around and wait for your approval. but it would behoove you to understand the differences in perspective if you have any desire in carrying out a meaningful debate with any of us. otherwise, you're likely to merely come off as sounding rather foolish.

anyways. this has little to do with my post, here. you just randomly accused me of being a marxist. that is incorrect. and that should be the end of this discussion.